A new Bill to speed up action against farm infections such as foot-and-mouth disease was unveiled by the Government today.

The Animal Health (Amendment) Bill, covering England and Wales, provides powers to slaughter any animal where it is necessary to prevent disease spreading.

One measure would enable government vets to apply to magistrates for a court order to go on the land of an unco-operative farmer during an outbreak and start culling.

The Bill would also allow action to eradicate scrapie from the national sheep flock.

Animal Health Minister Elliot Morley said the new measures would ensure foot-and-mouth disease could be dealt with effectively.

He told a London news conference that although there had been no new cases of foot-and-mouth since September 30, the Government could not be sure how the disease would develop, especially with large numbers of autumn animal movements taking place.

"This disease has involved huge expense, disruption and distress.

"We must not be prevented from taking effective action to stamp out the disease because we lack a key power," he said.

"The foot-and-mouth provisions of this bill ensure that we will not be left in this position."

It would also increase the range of options that might be applied against a farm disease outbreak.

It would not rule out alternative approaches, such as vaccination, but it would enable even vaccinated animals to be killed and compensation paid.

The Bill will adjust the arrangements for compensation for animals from farms which are infected with foot-and-mouth.

Seventy-five per cent of the value of the animals before they become infected will be payable, with the remaining 25% subject to an assessment of whether the farmer has acted in ways which risk spreading the disease.

Mr Morley said: "On the compensation changes, we want to send a clear message that we will no longer tolerate poor biosecurity.

"The vast majority of farmers behave responsibly and they will still receive compensation as before.

"Regretfully, even a small minority can be responsible for serious spread and it is not acceptable that the majority are put at risk in this way.

"Where there is clear evidence on infected premises ... that a farmer acted in such a way as to create the risk of spreading the disease, we will have powers to pay only 75% of the maximum amount.

"A lack of proper protection measures not only puts a farmer at risk but also the wider farming and rural community."